The Swamp is powered by Vocal creators. You support SKYLERIZED by reading, sharing and tipping stories... more

The Swamp is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.

How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.

How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.

To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.

Show less

Reason First: Should the Government Be Involved in Cornrows and Afros?

Should the government be involved in how employees and employers deal with one another on the issue of hairstyles?

Nonessentials, like hair texture and skin color, should have no bearing on whether an employer hires a candidate or not. And there definitely should be no laws for or against natural hair. In reality, in a fully free laissez-faire capitalist society, there would and ought to be discrimination against race, color, sex, sexual preference and anything else that really doesn’t matter among private citizens. All that should be considered is the competence of a given potential employee.

For those employers who are not intelligent enough to know that hairstyles, such as cornrows and Afros, are not as important as what lies under the scalp, they should check their premises. If they can’t differentiate from a potential worker who is highly qualified and one who barely makes the cut, but prefers the latter because she has straight hair instead of a kinky, then they don’t need to be in a hiring position. Then their business ought to eventually fail. And the same goes for the job seeker. If they want a career, they ought to be able to accept that their hairstyle can prevent them from obtaining a certain position. 

It is not proper for the government to interfere amongst individuals if no rights have been violated. A dreadhead with a PhD ought to know that if he wants to be hired at a private university, he can be turned away for his hairstyle. The State should not be involved, other than protecting the rights of the employer to not hire and the employee to search for work elsewhere.

What goes on between a person who hires and someone who is in need of a position is something that can be complex and demanding. That the government should stick its nose in the affairs of private individuals is an abomination. It shouldn’t matter if the candidate has braids on one side of his head and shaved on the other, as long as his brain functions well enough to fulfill the task. And for the hirer, she should be well-equipped intellectually to accept such a man based on his credentials and not how many strands of hair rest on his head.

As for the State, what happened to just focusing on the police, law courts, and the military? Why should the government assume authority in matters in which it has no business? With evil, non-rights propositions, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects no one from anything and only tramples over the rights of others. The US government should be ashamed. But it’s actually the fault of the American public. We get the laws and lawmakers that we deserve. Instead of the government abolishing forced taxation, ending entitlement programs, the welfare state and all regulations, the busybodies of the State seek to concern themselves with whether people possess weaves or received a wash and set. The natural hair issue is just the start. What’s next? Are employers supposed to be forced to hire people with missing front teeth to man service desks because the government deems it so?

The texture or style of someone’s hair shouldn’t even be a consideration for anyone. What should be thought about is whether the employer can decipher whether the person is up for employment is apt or inept, deft or daft. The one looking for the role should be able to meet and exceed expectations based on their head, not what grows on top of it. The hair police shouldn’t even be able to pass the law as it further denies the selfish, individual rights of the United States citizens. Instead of being concerned about the hairstyles of people, why isn’t the government devoting all of its energies into prosecuting attacks from foreign sources, criminals in the homeland, and the capability to settle matters rationally? This hairy situation only demonstrates the statist principles that have been eroding the country since its inception. The people of this nation should be more concerned about maximizing economic inequality and opportunities.

The government ought to only protect the rights of the individual and not feel the need to meddle in the affairs of whether or not she can sport a ponytail or not.

Now Reading
Reason First: Should the Government Be Involved in Cornrows and Afros?
Read Next
The 27th Amendment